Worst PR move since Netflix thought Qwikster was a smart idea.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure is backing off of its decision to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood, announcing in a blog post that the organization will continue to be able to apply for future grants.
“We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue,” Komen’s founder and CEO, Nancy Brinker, says in the statement. “We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics — anyone’s politics.”
Here's what we've learned this week.
If you're pro-choice, you've learned that Komen will throw its so-called mission under the bus in order to address the principles of its leaders.If you're pro-life, you've learned that Komen will throw its principles under the bus in order to keep the checks rolling in.
If this is the type of cause that appeals to you, do yourself a favor and find another non-profit that addresses the issue without the BS in which Komen is clearly mired. Komen would rather sell you a t-shirt than cure breast cancer, since that would be killing the goose that lays their golden eggs.
6 comments:
You really can make an amazing point now and then. Well done.
If you're pro-life and grateful for the early detection and treatment of cancer that the State of Wisconsin's health insurance plan offers you, you've learned that tweeting about Komen will help keep the checks rolling in.
Ouch. Though it undercuts the nice symmetry of your argument, I have to disagree with:
If you're pro-choice, you've learned that Komen will throw its so-called mission under the bus in order to address the principles of its leaders.
Though this argument is everywhere, it requires you assume that the only way for SGK to serve it's mission is through PP. And that the money granted to PP (a pittance of $600K in the face of PP's $1 billion in revenues) would not be used for other activities to combat breast cancer. That's simply unbelievable.
Argue that it was a poor strategic/PR decision. But this idea that it means SGK abandon it's mission or reduce it's impact on it's goals is just foolishness.
The excessive use of negatives in your second paragraphs has me a bit confused. Maybe it's just me.
I would agree (if this is what you're saying) that it's unbelievable that PP is using the Komen money for services other than those for which it was intended. As you yourself have pointed out, PP's budget is huge compared to Komen's contribution.
The other thing that is equally foolish is this ongoing belief with which the pro-life community deludes itself, that health care organizations can somehow treat money in a way that it is not fungible.
The reality is that if my organization spends $10k on mammograms and $10k on abortions, and the federal government gives me $10k to spend on mammograms but NOT abortions, I can now spend $10k on mammograms and $20k on abortions, all while arguing that the $10k the feds gave me is being spent on mammograms. Which is 100% accurate.
My point remains that if you are concerned about breast cancer, there are organizations who will spend your dollars better than Komen, which has become nothing other than a business that uses breast cancer to whore pink merchandise and skim administrative fees off of charity runs.
It is hard to express just how stupid you are. Amazing.
You need to find a hobby that you are good at.
Brillant insight into the McDonalds of women health non profits.
Post a Comment